The Didache | What Does it REALLY Tell Us About Early Christianity?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2024
- The Didache is the oldest church handbook handed down to us from the early church. The Didache tells us some truly incredible things regarding the practices of the first Christians! What did the first Christians believe and how does the Didache shed light on this topic?
#newtestament #christianity #history
![วันเกิดเธอ (TO YOU) - PHUWIN [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_ROx1Bj3T0Y/mqdefault.jpg)
If you are interested in learning more about the Q Gospel, check out our video all about it here: th-cam.com/video/deF4vtlBzDs/w-d-xo.html
I studied it in collage 40 years ago. It's amazing that back then it was considered oral and now its considered written yet lost.
No such document. There is no evidence that it ever existed.
The "Q" theory is unscriptural nonsense.
Isn't it interesting how "scholarship" so often presupposes that "a later author could have just inserted it into the text", despite having zero evidence to even suggest that that's what happened. Only when dealing with Christian writings though of course. You'll never find that much "skepticism" applied to anything else. They could be reading a recipe for pineapple upside down cake and find that it calls for a can of refried beans, and they still wouldn't be that skeptical.
I must say, the refried beans in a pineapple upside down cake part had me laughing pretty hard! Great comment! But I assure you as someone with a degree in ancient history, all kinds of ancient literature have interpolations in them. Not just Christian writings. And we have good evidence to suggest it happened. Some evidence is grammatical, some evidence is thematic, some evidence is papyrological…just to name a few. Formal training in historical analysis makes these later insertions stick out like a sore thumb.
Is there any specific evidence in this circumstance to think this is the case? Scholars in this area seem to only agree with each other when they’re biases, usually secular biases, align.
The reason they say that is they find references in earlier text. it's not like it it just appears there it has been found other places. Nobody's doing anything to biblical writings that they don't do to everything else they're not trying to get you nobody's looking in your windows little Feller
'Don't in any way say anything negative about my beliefs'.Such fragility!
There are many instances where later copies of texts contain passages that are absent in early copies of texts. This makes it pretty likely that someone added a passage later. in some instances, there are manuscripts that have the added verses inserted in the margins. This is not disputed by Biblical historians.
I love the didache. I actually have it on my phone. Great opening Didache line- "There are two ways, one of life and one of death, but a great difference between the two ways." Pretty much says it all
There is no Pauline Christianity in the Didache.
@@BenM61 There's no Pauline Christianity in the Bible either. Paul is a major part of the new testament and an apostle providing the teachings of Jesus via the aid of the holy spirit.
He's works are an accepted part of the Canon. Can't say the same about the Didache.
p.s. pretty crazy to be teaching a video on this subject while wearing a Jimi Hendrix shirt.
@@josephpchajek2685 Saul never met Jesus and he didn’t care about what Jesus preached in his gospel. All he cared about was the dead Jesus not Jesus and his gospel. This Saul guy claimed he has his own ‘gospel’ which he received from the dead Jesus. Apostle? No way. No one chose him to be an apostle but he installed himself an apostle. The twelve apostles didn’t choose him as an apostle. He was a fake apostle who founded the Christianity we know today. You are being led by an imposter who was himself led by Satan himself.
This Saul wrote:
“Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.”
He claimed the historical Jesus was not important anymore. Jesus to this heretic was worth more dead than alive.
It's a wonderful intro isn't it! :)
@BenM61 really, and he kept referring to Jesus speaking to him and guiding him through hard times? Except you already think Paul was a liar, there is enough evidence in his writings to show he depended on the living God, Jesus.
This sounds like a Muslim argument you are making. Are the other letters by John and Jude and Peter also from fake followers of Jesus?
That was an amazing lecture on the Didache…the best I have seen. Thanks for all your hard work in its creation.
Thank you richardglady! I appreciate your kind words! It was my pleasure creating it!
Regarding your comment on murdering children, it was very common practice in the Roman and Greek culture of the time to dispose of unwanted children- either through very risky abortion, or just leaving them outside once born. Early gentile Christians would have considered this an acceptable practice, hence the Didache's specific prohibition.
It is well noted in early Christian and non-Christian sources that the early church was noted for the very unusual practice of taking in abandoned babies, rather than leaving them to the dogs.
Specific source?
@@davidkarns6870 For what, the infanticide, or that Christians took them in? Pretty much all of the Greek philosophers taught it (they were very influential on Empirical Roman culture), and there are Roman sources like Seneca, Philo and Cicero who attest to the practice. There's even a papyrus letter from a Roman soldier to his pregnant wife, telling her to throw out her newborn if it's a girl. As far as Christians raising those children, you can go to many of the church fathers who discuss it and make exhortation to protect them. There are many Christian inscriptions on child graves in catacombs which are the burial places of children they couldn't save. It was Christian bishops appealing to Christian emperors that outlawed the practice, and non-christian emperors (Julian the apostate) who complained that the Christians cared for others, not just their own.
Not any single source, but not hard to find summaries online with a quick Google
Thanks for your comment. I have heard these before, but it's always better to have specific citations.
The kindness of strangers is a book that goes into detail about roman practices when a child was unwanted or the woman could not keep it. Babies were not, in Rome anyway, left outside to die. They were placed in the forum with notes and a ribbon around their wrist in case they desire to meet their mother when they are older. The ribbon would identify the adult to the mother. This was an early form of adoption and in roman law there was no difference between a bio kid and and adopted kid.
@@jungefrauwhy that sounds dreamy. Sometimes modern authors dream up stuff. From ancient sources we know that the Greek Spartans had an official who was sent to evaluate every newborn child. Those he deemed to be unfit were taken away to be exposed. That means the babies were taken to a certain place, usually the dump, and left. And there are Roman documents showing that the husband of the woman who gave birth would either accept the child, or would order it to be taken away to be exposed, usually at the dump. As Christianity was introduced, it's recorded that Christians were known to steal the exposed babies for use in their ritual sacrifice, where the Christians ate human flesh and drank human blood. Why would a rumor like that take hold unless the Christians were taking the exposed babies from the dump? Not the forum, but the dump. There might have been some women who gave birth to illegitimate babies, which is a legal status that means the children have not been acknowledged by any man, and therefore have no patrilineage in a patrilineal culture, therefore they have no means to any future except to be sold into slavery. And since an unwed woman would have a very difficult time earning money to feed, clothe, and house the infant until it was old enough to be sold into slavery, she might offer it up for adoption to any takers who were willing to see to its upbringing. But that wasn't a practice of the aristocracy or anyone of any standing in the culture.
I really like this channel. Scholarly, objective, without an agenda.
Too many channels dedicated to Christian education are little more than faux intellectual exercises; either they're preaching, or they're barely hiding a hostility to the faith.
This is so incredibly refreshing, intelligent & engaging - informative without causing the viewers eyes to glaze over.
Please, keep up the great work!
Thanks for your kind words rabbitdawg! That’s exactly what I’m hoping for! Much love!
Informative? I heard more it could be's and questions than anything informative!
You need to look for academic biblical scholars who are also either Christians or Jews, not theologians. There are quite a few here on youtube, I can think of several that are more neutral than this guy. I mean, he does his best, but it always leaks through a bit. Very few can absolutely hide it. There's only one here on youtube who doesn't share his beliefs and I couldn't tell you either way.
I’d love to hear what you think my personal views are! Especially if I don’t hide them well!
@ReligiosityPlus it doesn't matter how objective people try to be, you always accidentally say things without meaning to or without percieving how they may not be objective. I have picked up on 3 or 4 occasions where you haven't been objective or neutral. If you genuinely want to work on being more objective, I can go through these with you. I'm also happy to do this in private conversations, since if your views are secretly more progressive or more conservative than you let on to your family or community, you are either going to be dishonest with me or I'm going to put your relationships with your family and community at risk. Almost everyone exposes their beliefs to some extent whether they want to or not, but most people don't pick it up so I wouldn't worry too much if you are concerned about privacy. My grades during uni were somewhat mediocre, but when it came to motives and subtext, I always, always got HD grades. I think my identity also made these kinds of skills kinda necessary, and certainly helpful. I don't have many talents, but this is one of them. Now, if you are just looking for a defensive argument, don't bother even replying. I don't remember the exact name of the videos, and at least two occasions have been in the comments section, not the videos, and I am not going to go through the effort of going through all of your videos and comments to point them out if you are just going to be aggressive. I could describe what I remember, but I don't want you replying with "but that's not exactly word for word what I said". If I thought you were asking for the right reasons now, I would do that, but I have my doubts. Let me also point out that just because you aren't 100% objective doesn't mean you don't have valid things to teach. It just means you should just be a little more honest and upfront.
As a Lutheran, it breaks my heart that there are “Christians” who’d not take communion every week. It’s a complete betrayal of the faith.
It is not a complete betrayal of the faith.
@@SomewhereJoe-u5x Yes, it is. To take a memorial view of something as essential as the sacraments is practically heretical.
@@fighterofthenightman1057 Legalistic nonsense. I’ve never heard of such a thing. I’m ELCA, but there is a Missouri Synod church here that celebrates the Eucharist every other service. Are they heretics? If you miss going to church on Sunday is that a “mortal sin”, condemning you to hell? Please, read Paul, get right with the gospel, and stop preaching false doctrine.
@@fighterofthenightman1057 🙄
I agree with you.
He totally misrepresented Athanasius 39th pascal letter. The purpose of the letter was present what he thought should be canon to be read in church - the 27 books we have now - and also suggest others to study, but not be read aloud in church, “for more exactness.”
He specifically says the Didache and several others are important books to read to understand the faith but not to be read in church.
Absolutely to understanding early Christian literature. Thanks!
All churches should read it.
Fantastic video as usual! I always go to this channel when I want the most in depth historical understanding of ancient texts and concepts! Much respect!
Why thank you spirit guru! Greatly appreciate your kind words.
Before C4th it was part of NT , contained in Codex Alexandrinus , Codex Sinaiaticus & Codex Vaticanus , 3 oldest extant Greek Bibles .
These books included Letters of St Ignatuos of Antioch , Letter of Polycarp & Shepherd Hermas .
Glad i found this channel, great video!
I didnt skipped the adds, why? It's my only way to support you and the channels w/ the knowledge we can get from you Sir!! Finally, new video 🤩🤩🤩👊
Comment for the algorithm!
Amazing vieo as allways! You are amongst those youtubers on Christian topic that i adore and are dear to my heart!
Thank you for your ministry with your channel!
Thank you so much Squids! I greatly appreciate your kind words!
I love this channel. You do a great job explaining things eloquently in depth while not being overly complicated. I knew nothing of the didache before this video, but I didn't feel like I couldn't understand what was happening in this video, nor did I feel like I was being patronized to. Great work
I agree! He does such a great job explaining things in a respectful and informative manner!
Aww thanks patbilek692! I greatly appreciate your kind words! Thanks buddy!
As we research authentic sources for this document, it becomes luminously clear to scholars worth their salt, that the Didache was written between 50 to 60 AD, that the early Church Fathers were promoting Catholic doctrine in their writings since they were the direct beneficiaries of Apostolic teaching. What the Didache teaches us about the praxis of early Christianity is that it was Catholic and reflects the continuous practice and teaching of that Apostolic tradition today. Much appreciated.
The catholic Church didn't exist at that time. All early doctrine was Christian doctrine.
@katieevans6017 the Catholic Church did exist. When do you suppose the Catholic Church existed?
@@UrfavigboDuring the time period referenced, the Bishop of Rome was equal to peer bishops, including Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. The Church was catholic (universal) in outlook, as per the Great Commission, but was not Roman Catholic. Remember that Paul the Apostle was killed around 66 A.D. How could the existence of Roman Catholicism have escaped mention in Acts and other sources?
It was Catholic. Orthodox Catholic.
@Sam1jere The church did get mentioned. Cause it wasn't a separate entity from the church mentioned in Acts. St Ignatius of Antioch uses the word Catholic to separate the church that upholds orthodoxy from heretics. If you deny the Catholicity of the early church, then you claim it was heretic.
But anyways, by the time the didache was written, the see of Rome was already exercising authority on other diocese. We know this from Pope Clement's letter to the Corinthians. Also, the orthodox bishops did also acclaim the Bishop of Rome to be the 1st among equals.
I find the Didache to be fascinating and extremely worthwhile to one's spiritual walk. It reads to me much like the Epistle of James. It seems to me that it's less concerned with promoting adherance to doctrine than it is with how to conduct oneself, thus mirroring, in large part, my own beliefs.
What an interesting doctrine you have...
Just adhere to self then?
Well done, great attention to detail!
Thank you kindly!
As a biblical Christian who loves church history, I absolutely love the Didache and wish its wise teachings were practiced more often.
They are in expanded and adapted forms in the Eastern Orthodox Church where “the rule of prayer is the rule of faith/belief”. The New Testament came from the Apostolic tradition already being taught in the early Church through its hierarchy in its Liturgy and practices, not the other way round. The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the Church is “the pillar and ground of the truth.”
They are. In the Catholic Churches.
@@lornadoone8887 so long as you understand Paul's meaning of church wasn't the Roman Catholic which didn't exist in its current form but the followers of Jesus and the Way
@@brianwilliams-se5jy Sure the Catholic Church wasn't a thing then. That was the role of the apostles in Jerusalem. They were not just some random group of followers scattered about here and there.
@@jeremiahh.3383 random no but scattered they were, there were "churches" groups of followers scattered all across the Roman empire Paul's writings address many of them , the people were and are the true "church " its not some man made institution holed up in the Vatican
The Didache really is its own category in the “rejected” books of the canon, mostly not being in the canon because it’s more of a missal/catechism than anything else, and thus there was no real place for it.
The other three categories of rejected NT books are as follows: “near scripture,” that is, books that were often even thought of as scripture in many early Christian communities but not attributed to the apostles, such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians; pious legends, such as the Acts of Peter and the Acts of Paul and Thecla; and outright heretical books, often written by gnostic sects.
Thanks for the great video. Absolutely love your channel.
Thank you CanadianAnglican! Much love!!
Thank you for your video on the Didache and for stating that it is a composite book, written in layers at different times. I recommend the Didache for all Christians to read. For further study, I recommend the videos and texts of Alan Garrow, an active Anglican priest, on Garrow's website.
The Didache is a valuable part of Christian literature. Traveling missionaries did then what we do know: compile and compare notes when learning and trying to understand something.
The reason why it did not made to the canon: 1st Questionable authorship - early father's are aware that this is a compiled work that possibly intended as a cathecism to new convert; 2nd focus on orthoparchy instead of orthodoxy, ie. right actions over right faith
There is a great work by William Varner Professor of Biblical Studies called THE DIDACHE’S USE OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, that has some decent arguments for the existence of the Didache proving that the Gospel of Matthew was already a circulating written gospel. It shows how many many phrases in the Didache are direct copies of Matthew. It specifically uses words that appear in Matthew, whereas other gospels use an alternative word. There is also evidence for the Didache to have been as young as 70 AD. Neverthless, it can prove the existence of Matthew's Gospel from at least the end of the first century...to the dismay of many atheist scholars
The Didache saying "even the nations do this" about the golden rule shows that it wasn't a new or novel concept in the world.
This is super interesting! I've never heard of the Didache before!
I also find the baptism part about fasting interesting. I've never heard of someone fasting before baptism!
It was also super neat to think about the things listed as prohibitions being common practice. It's interesting to think about whether these things were common practice!
Thanks Whitley! It is interesting to think about isn’t it. Crazy world out there! Thanks for the comment!!!!
The Holy Orthodox Church still does this. ☦️
Another amazing video! Thanks so much!
Thanks for the comment scottleibbrandt! Blessings to you!
Very comprehensive overview - the parallels of the first chapter of the DIDACHE and 1QSerek (and ‘the Damascus Document CD from cave 4) found in 1946-1949 at Qumran (probably copied as early as c. 150 BCE) suggest further links between the earliest ‘Nazorean’ Christianities in the Levant and the Dead Sea Scroll ‘Zafokite’ break-away Covenanters at Seccacah (present day Qirbet Qumran) which the monks in the 1st century BCE through June 68 CE called ‘the Camp at Damasqim’ - when the Vatican got wind of the Qumran Dead Sea scroll ‘Rule book’ 1QS, the Ecole Biblique immediately seized control of the caves’ fragments (until 1989 !) so that they could stifle the publication of any fragments ‘that might impugn the image of Christ being unique’ - and being very knowledgeable about the contents of the DIDACHE the Vatican immediately recognised the connexion between the earliest Nazorean Christianities & the scrolls as a ‘danger to the Faithful’…
An actual direct quotation about ‘The Doctrine of the Two Ways’ from 1QSerek & other passing references to ‘the Way of Life v. the Way of Death’ in CD would have illustrated this connexion better for your audience …
In terms of early ‘acceptance’ of the DIDACHE by later Christian bishops who had to decide ‘which books could be acceptable for being read-aloud in Church Service Liturgy’ here are some more details :
Iranaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, John of Damascus, Tatian, Theophilos & Ignatius of Antioch & Justin Martyr all quoted from the DIDACHE as if they ‘accepted it as authoritative’ [the Peshitta and the Aethiopic Bible both accept the DIDACHE as ‘canonical holy scripture’ & is listed in the ‘Apistolic Canons’ as ‘authoritative’ -
Whereas on the other hand later Church leaders like Eusebeius (c. 320 CE), Nikephoros (c. 810 CE) and Pseudo Athanasius (c. 670 CE) believed that ‘the DIDACHE is not canonical holy writ itself, but we acknowledge some churches still regard it as ‘defiling the hands’ (= I.e. holy scripture) - so there was some division from the earliest days as to how to regard this ‘composite’ book which may have existed in longer or shorter versions (like the gospel narratives) as they circulated over time and in different areas of the world by means of hand-written copies…
Your theories lack credible evidence re vatican trying to hide them.
The admonition against "mixing poison" is specifically about chemical contraception, a practice common among Roman upper class women...
The early Christians, as it grew beyond Israel, was made of of converted pagans. It wasn't that the early Christians, per se, were harming very young children, but the societies they were coming out of, it was the normal way of life. (Part of their discipleship was reminding them they were now leading a different life) Now look up their practices dealing with very young children in the societies they were leaving in order to walk with Jesus. (The Roman father had power to either approve a new addition to the family, or disapprove it.)
Well said! Completely agree!
This is not saying that it was "possible" that it was an early Christian practice to kill children by abortion, quite the contrary: it is saying that it was a cultural norm that the pagans did and the Christians were forbidden to do. It was a practice for children to be "exposed," I.e., left out in the wilderness to be killed either by the weather or by wild animals, if the child was not the desired gender of the parents. Early Christians were known to be very unusual in that they would go out and find these doomed children and raise them as their own, which is why it specifically mentions the practice of murdering a child both via abortion and "by killing it once it is born." Both were practices that were known in the first century, which is why the didache mentions them directly as things not to do.
Amazing that this guy does not say that one of the controversies in baptising was whether to baptise only adults and whether to use the name prescribed by the Bible--Jesus Christ.
There was no paedobaptism controversy at that time. As in the New Testament, baptism was explicitly restricted to persons old enough to those who had expressed faith in Christ Moreover, the Didache required candidates for baptism to have received instruction and to have fasted for at least the day before, which effectively ruled out paedobaptism.
I think it strange that a religious (or Christian) TH-cam channel would use the secular dating method rather then the Christian one. 🤔
Anything good to say?
@@geoffhemmings6546
Praise Him! Praise Him! Jesus, our blessed Redeemer!
Sing, O Earth, His wonderful love proclaim!
Hail Him! Hail Him! Highest archangels in glory;
Strength and honor give to His holy Name!
Like a shepherd, Jesus will guard His children,
In His arms He carries them all day long.
Praise Him! Praise Him! Tell of His excellent greatness;
Praise Him! Praise Him! Ever in joyful song!
Praise Him! Praise Him! Jesus, our blessed Redeemer!
For our sins He suffered, and bled, and died.
He our Rock, our hope of eternal salvation,
Hail Him! Hail Him! Jesus the Crucified.
Sound His praises! Jesus who bore our sorrows,
Love unbounded, wonderful, deep and strong.
Praise Him! Praise Him! Tell of His excellent greatness;
Praise Him! Praise Him! Ever in joyful song!
Praise Him! Praise Him! Jesus, our blessed Redeemer!
Heav'nly portals loud with hosannas ring!
Jesus, Savior, reigneth forever and ever;
Crown Him! Crown Him! Prophet, and Priest, and King!
Christ is coming! over the world victorious,
Pow'r and glory unto the Lord belong.
Praise Him! Praise Him! Tell of His excellent greatness;
Praise Him! Praise Him! Ever in joyful song!
Whose invention was "BC" & "AD?" Learn from 2 Timothy 2:14.
@@timswauger9245 I don’t know. But it was a great invention.
@mrnoedahl An Eastern Orthodox monk 500 years after Jesus' resurrection. Like Easter & Christmas celebrations, there's nothing in Scripture requiring it. Besides, "BCE" "CE" are still based on Christ's birth, regardless if it's acknowledged.
It's now known the Didache was wide spread before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.
Sources for this statement?
Start following Jimmy Akin. Top Theologian of our time.
Great video just found your video young man
Thank you! I appreciate your kind words!
You do what you believe. Thus, behavior preaches what you believe.
I have this along with all of the 2nd century father writings. Haven't got to this yet.
It quoted Matt 6:9 the Lord’s Prayer with the long ending. Is that true to the original?
The prohibition of abortion in the Didache does not imply that early Christians did it, but notes that it was ongoing, and that newcomers into the Church (who needed teaching) had to realize that what they were “used to” on the outside was not allowed once they became Christians. Abortion was practiced at least as early as Hippocrates (c. 400) as he prohibited the practice (perhaps why the Hippocratic Oath is no longer used).
@@thomasbeach905 well said. Yes, I totally agree. Thanks for the comment. I should have explained myself better when I made that statement.
Great video!
Thank you kindly!
Very interesting. Does the Didache mention Jesus's Resurrection?
To my knowledge the debate around baptism has been going on since the reformation when a few men started forming their own churches based on their personal beliefs and interpretations of the bible.
The Reformation re-opened some questions that the Catholic and Orthodox churches believed to be settled by 1500CE, like when to baptize (babies or only adults) and how. But the Didache shows that these questions were debated in the early church, and it took a mediating position.
Found the Catholic, lol. You realize the Reformers didn’t change a thing about baptism, right? Luther, Calvin, Cranmer … all supported infant baptism and said baptism saves.
@fighterofthenightman1057 - you should realize that there were many reformers who interpreted the bible as they wished and that anabaptists organized and took over churches even in the 16th century, but were mostly unsuccessful. The reformer you listed were the more successful ones, which is why you know them.
A different Greek work for pouring is used in the Didache, "ekceon" than "baptizo," which means immerse. The New Testament only knows of immersion as "baptizo." There is no New Testament example of pouring. Baptism is a burial (Acts 8:34-39; Colossians 2:12; Romans 6:4).
One non-canonical book you forgot to mention is Enoch. It was written during the inter-Testamental period and its influence in early Christian thinking is apparent through various references. To my knowledge, its now only included in Ethiopian Christianity's New Testament. Theirs is regarded as one of the oldest forms of Christianity.
“Typically things that are included in lists of prohibitions are things that are commonly practiced.” What? Where does this assumption come from? My own experience writing employee policy documents is that something only needs to have happened once to make it onto a list of prohibitions if it is sufficiently serious.
It is a category error to assume modern day employee policy documents have any similarities to an ancient church handbook nearing 2,000 years old. Paper in the ancient world was expensive and the cost of including something in an ancient document is much higher than today. If something was an uncommon practice, why use the extra space and cost to include it? If something was more of a widespread issue, then it makes sense to include. Today, employee policy is designed to cover a variety of real or potential issues to avoid litigation. This simply wasn't the case 2000 years ago in the ancient near east.
@@ReligiosityPlus Was writing material really so expensive as to preclude the inclusion of anything that wasn’t common in a list of prohibitions? And ancient writings have a ton of inefficiencies that could be eliminated long before we get to this issue, so the idea that ancients had to be so stingy with writing materials is doubtful.
Making this assumption, you’d also have to conclude that infanticide was common among early Christians that the author of the Didache was writing to. I know that infanticide is far rarer now than it was anciently, but are we really to conclude that it was common? And what about murder generally? And mixing poisons in particular?
I understand that employee handbooks today and the Didache are different things, but it’s human nature to make the kinds of analyses that we would describe today as a risk matrix. If the odds of something happening are low, but the consequences are terrible, then it’s worth addressing. That reasoning didn’t pop up spontaneously with corporate risk management departments.
So what’s the evidence for the claim above?
@@dcboliviaWriting was not a common practice at the time. Writing material was not something widely available to the public. And yeah, ritual sacrifice of infants was definitely a thing.
@@spikestoyou It’s true that literacy was low and writing materials less abundant than today, but it doesn’t then follow that only common practices would make it into a list of prohibitions. Scarcity didn’t seem to impede the circulation of all three synoptic gospels, despite being duplicative in many parts. And adding a few lines for rhetorical flair, as a stern warning, or whatever other motivation one might have other than that the practice is common, does not take up much space.
Child sacrifice was common among early Christians? Show me the evidence.
@@dcbolivia Not early Christians but semitic peoples more generally had a recent history of engaging in such practices. Anyway kinda seems like something just jumped out at you that you’d like to argue about so I’m gonna just wish you well and move on. God bless
In the Catholic Church I believe it is an approved book, meaning good to read, but not infallible as scripture. I’m pretty sure it’s friendly to the Catholic view of the Eucharist, that’s why it’s really only controversial in Protestant circles
The two ways formula goes back to Old Testament Jewish Wisdom literature...and shows in works like Jeremiah 21:8 and Psalm 1:1 etc
Dating the didache and the didachist can be darn difficult
Is it possible that the Bryennios manuscript in 1056 added extra notes to the 2 fragments he had access to. Could our version of the didache be an edited version, regarding baptismal formulae etc? Is it likely that the notorist added any understanding from earlier writings or his current understanding, or Is it not possible, at all?
P.s. I have subscribed, you are thorough snd interesting, thanks
Thanks for your subscription! It is certainly possible that Leon the notary and sinner added parts of his own understanding to the text. But from what little evidence we have from our other sources, including those from the early church fathers, it seems he was faithful to the text and was a good scribe. As far as we know!
To what end was the Didache stitched together as a patchwork after the fact? Isn't more plausible that a 1st/2nd century Christian Leader was already familiar with the gospels and the writings of Paul? Or at least already swimming in the waters of what would soon become established tradition?
Quite frankly: I've had a stomach full of early 20th century German 'higher criticism'. This outdated 'scholarship' is still dying kicking and screaming.
11:32 to get to content.
How do you make the leap that because the writing mentions a prohibition against abortion that early Christians may have been practicing abortion? Clearly the writing is backing up what Paul and other NT writers were saying to not do what the world, secular culture were doing.
I’m simply pointing out that prohibition lists are often in place because they represent issues that have actually happened. The fact that more and more Gentiles began converting to the faith should not surprise us that these new converts still practiced some of their old pagan ways. Thus, it makes logical sense to think new converts in the early church practiced abortion. I’m not saying it was a widespread and accepted practice within the early church. No way
No, it's a fair point. People were committing abortion whether it was the Christians or non Christian. Where he goes wrong is that he should have brought the discussion to the notion that the early church was very anti abortion. When he leaves it as he did, it supports the notion that the early church didn't consider abortion to be a sin, which is clearly not the case.
Something you didn't consider by way of origin is a priority in Holy Scripture: Divine Revelation. You may be aware that the entirety of the 2nd chapter of I Corinthians is about the priority of Revelation. Jesus Himself is quoted in Jn 10: "My sheep hear My voice, I know them and they follow Me." Paul said in Eph 4: But ye have not so learned Christ if so be that ye have heard Him and been taught by Him as the truth is in Jesus."
I could go on but this comment is getting long. But the testimony of Scripture doesn't commend to us the figuring out of these spiritual realities we mean to grasp. Spiritual realities are not apprehended by cogitation, they are apprehended by Revelation. The Bible itself cannot be understood by cogitation, it must also be a matter of Revelation or it cannot be understood. To think that the Early Church out of cogitation instead of Revelation suggests of them that they were operating in the same Greek Rationalism that is such a plaguing idolatry in the Church today for maybe a millennia and a half. The Early Church was populated abundantly by lower class people whose literacy and training in reasoning may reasonably be questioned.
That we seem to exclude Divine Revelation from the experience of Faith and Faithfulness remains a mystery to me.
CE or AD? CE works if you mean Christian Era and not Common Era. After all Christ did create time.
I thought the same thing. If you are using BCE or CE you are saying Jesus wasn’t real man. All the evidence says he was a living historical man.
🤡 do you mean that pope Gregory created time? Christ did not use BC or AD, and neither should we
Christ created time? You are delusional
BC and AD made for time before and after jesus lives and it was accepted for centuries..
CE or BCe is absurd
Well imagine that the Didache teaches exactly what the Catholic Church has taught for 2,000 years and reaches all the way back to the 1st century.
@@Spiritof76Catholic what a blatant lie. The RCC has continually added doctrines and practices that were unheard of in the church in the 1st century.
Jesus is the Son of God ,the Son of God ,not God the Father, He is the express image of His Father,Second in power of all things.The Father is mightier then the Son.The Son recieves His power from His Father.
No, He is God, there are three Divine Persons in the One God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Didache also draws heavily on the Jewish Torah as does much of Jesus' teaching in the gospels.
"For those who want to dive further into the madness"!! The only thing that you stated that makes any sense!!
Scholarship can be madness sometimes! I find it enjoyable.
It's BC and AD
In college I had to use B.C.E. and C.E. so it's a habit that stuck. That is all.
CE and BCE were invented by Christian scholars who figured out that Jesus could not have been born in the year 1. These days it is also used by Christians who are intelligent and educated enough to know this, and are the commonly accepted terms by academic scholars. You use BC and AD strictly out of habit and ignorance.
@@angelawossname CE and BCE were invented by JEWISH scholars because they reject Christ as Messiah (Christos means Messiah in Greek) and they can't use terminology that recognize Him as such
Wrong. BC and AD are used because they originate from the Gregorian calendar, developed by Catholics. BCE and CE are religiously neutral terms for those folks who don't want to use Christian terms or references. 2024 AD and 2024 CE are the same year. So although you and I can agree that the Gregorian calendar does not get the year of Jesus's birth correct, the BCE and CE calendar doesn't get it right either.
@@rappmasterdugg6825 It's the same calendar and starting year "zero". What's the point of obfuscating the truth with a nicer sounding abbreviation. Christians still won the calendar game. Let be up front about it
Why do you use common era ( ce) instead of BC or AD?
How do we know that God, and not mere mortals, determined which books made the canon?
Because Jesus promised the gates of hades shall never prevail against the church. It was with God that Christians were able to perform miracles. It was through him that their faith was not shaken even during times of persecution. God delivered his people from the hands of their persecutors and so through him again, the Christian Canon was set.
Also, the Christian Canon was not set in one day. Since the time of the Apostles, people have been writing, and others have been accepting these writings as truth. Because God was with them.
@@Urfavigbo But who has authority to dictate what is orthodoxy and what is heresy? Not all Christianity recognizes the same 27 book New Testament. There are more writings not included in the canon than are. Further, the earliest known codex (Vaticanus) excludes 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Revelation. The later codex Sinaiticus has these books but also includes the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermes. Even Martin Luther thought Revelation wasn't scripture. There is no evidence of the divine in the New Testament selection - just men and power.
@@food4thort first off, all fo Christianity currently recognises the books of the new testament. It's the old testament people debate. And OK, Luther had a problem. So what? Christianity had already long considered these books scripture. That's Luther's problem.
The difference in the codex vaticanus, codex sinaiticus, codex alexandrinus and the Bible we have today just goes to show that the Bible was not made canon in a day and that the Bible is not one book. In many different places, there were books that had significantly more importance than they did elsewhere. So just because a book was not traditionally read or part of a Canon of a certain region does not mean that it was forbidden to be read by the wider church.
@@Urfavigbo All Christianity does NOT recognize the 27 NT books of the KJV (and derivatives thereof). The Eastern Orthodox tradition and the Oriental Orthodox tradition for example. Who is to say that only the Western Orthodox tradition is correct? Faith is based on believing what you want to believe
@@food4thort ok I'm gonna give you a chance to go back and do your research. Then we could continue this conversation. The tewahedo church, ok fine but that's part of their broader canon, but everyone else agrees on the books of the NT.
Let me just lead you to the right direction. The deuterocanonicals are not part of the NT but the OT
The didache communion reads more like a Jewish kiddush then a catholic communion
What does C.E. mean, and why has it displaced A.D. in the discourse of smart people?
CE stands for "Common Era" and it is often used instead of AD "Anno Domini", which means "In the year of our Lord" for a few reasons. 1. Christ wasn't born in year 0. He was born around 6 BC. 2. It's more universal/inclusive. Not everyone wants to count years in relation to Christ's birth. Also, many smart people use BC and AD still. It's a matter of preference. Myself, I use it out of habit. In college I was required to use it and its always stuck with me.
Atheists didn’t want jesus in the calculation of dating
Tells me just like in all time periods,people made up a religion and a God in their own images.Each race went home and made unto themselves a Jesus in their own image.And A God to match.
Great
I thought there was scholars who date the didiche to pre 70s based on the wide spread quotations of it that occur both in scripture ie Pauline and the earliest church writings ie Barnabas, shepherd of Hermes. Did I just imagine those quotes or inferences when I read them.
Great video! But regarding 17:50... huh? Unless you also want to assume theft, murder, & the other prohibitions in that passage were common practices among Christians... singling out abortion strikes me as totally ad hoc.
Thanks for the comment bromponie! I wasn't trying to say that abortion was a common practice among Early Christians so much as I was attempting to highlight the fact that many pagans were entering the faith and it's possible that many pagan practices followed them. So they needed something like the Didache to instruct them as to how followers of Christ should behave. Newcomers to the faith likely engaged in all kinds of questionable activities without realizing they were contrary to the views of their new religion.
@@ReligiosityPlus That's fair 🍁
I'm curious if the Didache's prohibition on abortion specifically regards to killing the unborn, or if it's against murdering the unborn. The definition of murder is an illegal killing, so it's an interesting distinction.
Brother, it cannot be true that the identity of the Didachist "will likely always be a mystery" because Jesus tells us otherwise. " For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad" Luke 8:17 Love, Hezekiah
Dude speaks to us like we are 5
Interesting, I have a 5 year old…I don’t usually discuss first century redaction criticism and details about the early church fathers with him….but if people spoke to you like that when you were 5, then color me impressed!
The Didache: Christianity for Dummies, first century.
On point, or not?
It's a Catechism basically
Here's an idea maybe the didache writer is the author of the letter to the Hebrews.
You mention speculations that the Didachist knew of at least passages from 'Matthew' and 'Luke'. Is it not more likely that the authors of M and L knew some of the earlier documents that the Didache compiles, if not the Didache itself?
As if they knew of the oral tradition that predates the written gospel? I think that is what the “Q” source and is potentially right.
Otherwise, the document is almost certainly just quoting Matthew and Luke
@@randomjake1488 But the 'Q' source appears to have been a 'sayings of Jesus' compilation (like the Gospel of Thomas), whereas the Didache is largely a 'procedural handbook' based (it seems likely to me) on the practices of the Jerusalem church (i.e. Jesus' own family and other disciples), with elements of tactics to oppose 'false preachers' which might have been prompted by the activities of Paul (and his gentile followers) in the 50s and 60s.
As such its elements (if not the document as a compiled whole) likely predate 66-70, when the Jerusalem church fled or was dispersed into Syria and elsewhere, whereas most scholars now think that 'Mark' was written 70-80, and 'Matthew' perhaps 10 years later.
The very notion of 'the canon' dates from a century later than the usual dates given to the Didache. So when it first circulated: there was no canon for it to be a part of. It was however seen as a writing of the Apostolic fathers and therefore had weight in those early communities. A 'weight' similar to the writings of Paul or the Shepherd of Hermas.
Eusebius? We should approach Eusebius with caution... 'Constantine's Christian propagandist' would be a good description of him. Athanasius (Constantines 'enforcer') doesn't support an Egyptian origin.. He was writing 2 centuries later.
My 'dupliciity' detector is twitching.
I agree with you regarding the notion of the two canons. You are correct on that point, for sure.
I disagree regarding Eusebius and Athanasius-and really, Constantine, for that matter. Were you maybe refering to Eusebius of Nicomedia, rather than Eusebius of Caesarea?
Eusebius of Caesarea (not to be confounded with Eusebius of Nicomedia, the excommunicated, then reconciled, then the baptizer of Constantine just prior to the emperor's death) can hardly be called Constantine's propagandist. Eusebius of Caesarea was just barely in the Orthodox party (i.e., he wasn't excommunicated), which indicates that he wasn't among Constantine's very closest friends there (see below). He had initially supported the other Eusebius (of Nicomedia) and Arius, and he was skeptical of some of the language used by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria's party ("homoousion" had been used in another way by the Sabellian heretics), but he ultimately sided with the Orthodox and signed. He did write two panegyrics and a eulogy for Constantine which has come down to us, and he held the emperor in high regard. The emperor also liked and admired him, but he was certainly not the mouthpiece of an emperor who was not a fully baptized Christian until very close to his death. Eusebius of Caesarea seems to be one of those characters in history who manages to get along with just about everyone. It is this quality that makes his Church history (the first such work outside of the Acts of the Apostles) generally trustworthy, even if his dates aren't perfect.
People in the west love to say that Constantine controlled the Church or that he ran the First Ecumenical Council, but this cannot be true for several reasons. First, the council is estimated to have lasted close to a year (there are no official acts of the council, but we do have writings of those who attended). An emperor does not have that kind of time. Second, Constantine was not a Christian at this time, not even a catechumen. He had an interest in Christianity (his mother Helen was a Christian), and he had experienced the vision of the chi-rho before battle; but the bishops would not have allowed him to make judgments about their faith. Third, Constantine spoke Latin, while the council was held in Greek. He sometimes stopped by to listen in. During those moments, Bishop Hosios of Cordoba (Spain) translated for him. But by all accounts, he didn't stick around too long. Fourth, the handful of bishops who were excommunicated by the rest (over 300 bishops in attendance) were precisely the bishops who were the closest friends of Constantine. If Constantine had controlled the council, the excommunication of his friends would not have been the outcome.
Calling Athanasius Constantine's enforcer is an even harder stretch: he was exiled by Constantine after being falsely accused of scheming to stop the supply of grain from Egypt. A deacon of the Alexandrian party and secretary to Alexander during the First Ecumenical Council, Athanasius supplied much of the thought that ultimately carried the day at the council. Since Constantine's closest friends among the bishops were excommunicated by the council, Constantine would certainly not have asked the author of the language of the council to be his enforcer. Ultimately, Athanasius was exiled five times by four different emperors. He was falsely accused of killing a bishop named Arsenius (who was actually still alive); he was forcibly replaced in his episcopal see of Alexandria (he was elected bishop after Alexander by the insistence of the faithful there) by a couple of different Arians; and he fled Alexandria on other occasions when his life was in danger. While he did work tirelessly for the Church (his list of the 27 books of the NT is believed to be the first complete list ever recorded), he clearly had no time or luxury to be anyone's enforcer. I'm aware that Bart Ehrman and his ilk have made statements to the effect that Athanasius wielded immense power throughout his reign as bishop, but the evidence is very much stacked against them on this point (and many others they like to make).
Regarding authorship of the didache, I think I see what you mean. But I think what the author of the video meant is that since it appeared in Egypt at that early date, Egypt could be the place the didachist lived. There was quite a lot of travel and trade between the two sites he suggested, so it would be difficult to say with certainty anyway. I'm honestly surprised that he didn't say Jerusalem directly, since the Didache contains so many direct references to Jewish literature. There are a few mistakes in the video, but it's good overall.
@@samlawhorn Er... Have you read Eusebius of Ceaserea's incomplete 'Vitae Constantine'? I can't think of a more fawning eulogising propaganda of a psychotic ruler,
And let's not forget the Eusebius seems almost to have defined the supposed 'truth' of church history for the 4th century and after up to the 18th C., probably being the one who faked the Testamonium Flavinium as we now have it. Not to mention the '50 Bibles thing' which is basically a pamphleting campaign in a pre-print context. And our first historical mention of the Council of Nicea is provided by....guess who?
I have no idea why you would imagine Constantine had 'friends', or why you would imagine he wouldn't drop any associates like a hot brick should that suit his purpose. Dude executed his wife and his own son after all. Not to mention his reputation for 'forgiveness' in public... with those he had 'forgiven' later experiencing encounters with 'murderous bandits'. Dude was not a 'friendly' sort.
And it's pretty clear from Constantine's support of the Anti-Arian council at Antioch that he had already sided with Alexander against Arius. And as I understand it Constantine appointed the anti-Arian bishop Ossius as basically the Chairman and his agent and representative at both Antioch and Nicaea. And of course Constantine made his dramatic entrance to emphasise his oversight too...* And it does not seem to be a secret that what he was really after was 'unity'. anti-Arian seemed to him the most likely to provide that. I also seem to recall Constantine camped a couple of Legions a few miles away to 'ensure the safety of the council'. And it's pretty obvious, that Constantine made it very clear that 'same substance' was going to be part of the creed.
With this in mind. We very quickly get a picture of Constantine's political manoeuvring, intimidation, and control. I doubt few there (he invited 1800... Only about 300 turned up) were under any illusion of the 'wise' decision they were expected to make. The near unanimity of the council (only two dissenters) seems profoundly suspicious in this regard.
*Now there is a prime example of Eusebius propagandising, describing Constantine's entrance... "himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones." Seems like the threat of 'excommunication' worked to get Eusebius back on side.
Oh... And 'late baptism' was near universal among Christians at the time... Once you have been absolved, don't want to live too long afterwards, wouldn't want to tarnish that nice clean soul.
I'll do Athanasius seperately.
@@samlawhorn Athanasius... Your description of Athanasius seems to me to emphasise his role as Constantines 'enforcer. Pushing limits, testing boundaries... Exiled when he went too far even for Constantine. (Gotta be pretty malicious for that.) Not to mention he later sided with Constan's the more psychotic of Constantine's surviving sons.
It's not clear why you would think him falsely accused of trying to starve Alexandria into submission. 'later whitewashed to appear innocent' would seem to be a more accurate interpretation.
Athanasius's 'canon'*.... Would seem to show his propensity to approve and disapprove texts which is pretty obvious 'enforcement' behaviour. And which likely led to the burial of the Nag Hammadi corpus. And let's not forget that Orwell dubbed Heresy and blasphemy as 'crimethink', so it's obviously a political tool in itself.
The fact he could manoeuvre (intimidate?) the Alexandrian clergy to his cause seems likewise to confirm his status as 'enforcer' rather than refute it. And his many exiles likewise demonstrate his propensity to test and cross boundaries. It also likewise suggests that given an opportunity to get him out of their hair... His support among the clergy could melt away at a moment's notice.
Glad to hear Ehrman is finally onside, last I heard/read him on the issue he was somewhat kind to Athanasius, but that was at least a decade .
*Granted Athanasius nicked a lot of his canon list from the relatively obscure (at the time) Iraneous of Lugdnum.
@@samlawhorn Oh... And regarding the Video.... The opening few minutes were far too duplicitous I never got any further...
I personally do not accept the B.C.E and C.E and it matters not to me what 'Important professional' look down on me for doing so. It is specifically, B.C. Before Christ and A.D. After Death - meaning after the death of Christ.
I by no means look down on anyone for using BC and AD. I use BCE and CE because I had to use it in college and it became a habit. That’s all. Also, AD does not mean “After Death.” AD means “Anno Domini” meaning “in the year of our Lord.” Thanks for the comment
Whose invention was "BC" & "AD?" Learn from 2 Timothy 2:14.
@@ReligiosityPlusAnd that’s exactly the problem: anti-Christian academia hates Christianity and western culture and tries to enforce their anti-Christian norms. I always complain vociferously when someone uses BCE/CE ; it’s very offensive.
@@ReligiosityPlus Jesus was born several years ‘Before Christ’. Some think 2 BCE others reckon 6 BCE. It wasn’t in a ‘zero’ year.
I find it ironic that you use the secular C E. instead of AD.
Just something I had to use in college and now it's a habit. That's all.
A.D. is not Christian either, just a denoter of a time. We understand that Jesus is still the divider of time (and history), whether anno domini or Christian Era is used. Majoring on minors perhaps?
Who cares? We know what it means.
@@jonspencer9461except the “common era” is dated from the life of Christ.
dude who cares Jesus is not the center of the universe and all of history does not revolve around him lol
It's AD.
Great Catholic book
If it’s a Catholic book, why isn’t it in the Catholic Bible?
@@Bazzini78Even the Bible concedes that no everything Jesus did is in the Bible. John21:25. Gods word comes to us in Scripture and Tradition and through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
@@Spiritof76Catholic That’s not the answer to my question, why isn’t it in the Catholic Bible?
@@Spiritof76Catholic Catholic Church has a bad history of church asking poor people to pay indulgences for sins to be forgiven. I respect Orthodox Church.
@@Bazzini78 It’s not inspired. Also, the Bible is not Catholic… it is ‘universal’ though. Let’s not confuse everyone.
The Didache is biblical
Sounds a lot like... the Catholic Church. Ignatius of Antioch (d.c.107), disciple of John: "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Blessings
It’s so misleading to capitalise the English word ‘Catholic’.
The Greek or Latin equivalents were ‘universal’… the single church became corrupted, so it’s no badge of honour.
@@Mandellhouse The Church Jesus established never became corrupted. If it did then you are alleging Jesus failed and you are wrong.
Of course Catholic Church means the universal church since it is the only Christian church
Jesus established. Here is the entire Ignatius quote: See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God.
Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
-Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8.
Organizationally it sounds suspiciously like Ignatius is describing the Catholic Church today as it was then as Jesus told the Apostles to establish.
@@Spiritof76Catholic Jesus predicted it! Also Paul did. Matt 13, Thessalonians.
Didache does not say to use the name of Jesus Christ in Didache.7.
Forget the CE political correctness junk. It's properly called AD.
If you’re going to conclude, on the basis of it being prohibited in writing, that the early Christians commonly practiced abortion you’re going to also have to conclude they commonly committed murder in general 🙄
This is rather a ridiculous conclusion. The text includes instructions to new believers, right down to being baptized. It’s for you are different as believers.
What you can conclude is that abortion was common enough in society and that Christians considered aborted babies as murder victims just as adults.
Yes I completely agree, I explained myself poorly when I made that statement.
What I was intending to say was that new converts to the faith likely retained their pagan practices, to some degree, even after converting (for lack of understanding what exactly was expected of them). So it’s likely that early Christians (those who just converted from paganism) likely practiced abortion and they needed to be taught that it is no longer acceptable.
I was by no means trying to say it was common among Christians in general. My apologies. And yes, I liked what you said, “abortion was common enough in society.” I think that’s spot on. Great insight!
Read the book of James.
Ridiculous, according to "scholars" all documents are redactions, not just the Gospels and the Law but also obscure 20-minute-reads from the early church have to be made up of supposedly lost texts.
Begging the question.
The Didache emphasized by "quotes."
Scriptural passages supplied from the King James.
CHAPTER 1
"and fast for
those who are persecuting you."
Never found in scripture. Fasting is for the benefit of the Christian, NOT for their enemies.
"But love those hating you, and you will not have an
enemy."
NONSENSE. A man will still have enemies even though you "love" them.
"It has been said concerning this, "Let your money sweat
in your hands until you know whom you should give it to."
Never found in scripture. Sounds like a precursor to Indulgences.
CHAPTER 2
"you shall not speak evil nor hold a grudge"
MATTHEW 5:22
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother *without a cause* shall be in danger of the judgment.
Consult your "bible" to see if this phrase has been OMITTED from this verse.
It has been in:
NIV
New Catholic bible
NASB
ASV
ESV
RSV
Amplified bible
CHAPTER 3
"Accept everything that happens to you as good, knowing that nothing happens apart from God"
LUKE 10:30-31
A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31And *by chance* there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
2 SAMUEL 1:5-6
And David said unto the young man that told him, How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan his son be dead? 6And the young man that told him said, As I happened *by chance* upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him.
LUKE 13:1-5
There were present at that season some that told him of the *Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.* 2And Jesus answering said unto them, *Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?* *3I tell you, Nay:* but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. *4Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?* *5I tell you, Nay:* but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Sounds like Augustinian fatalism.
CHAPTER 4
"Do not forsake the commandments of the Lord, and keep (the teachings) you have received, *not adding and not taking away."*
This "commandment" has already been violated in Chapter 1.
CHAPTER 6
"See that no one misleads you from the pathway of this teaching, since it would be contrary to God."
Are the author(s) claiming inspiration for the Didache? Sounds like it.
CHAPTER 7
"If you do not have running water, baptize in other water.
If you are not able to use cold water, use warm.
And if you have neither, pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
And before baptism, the one baptizing and the one to be baptized should fast, as well as any others who are able.
And you should instruct the one being baptized to fast one or two days before"
There are MULTIPLE problems with this chapter.
Water baptism does NOT save a man, we are baptized into One Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13, Eph. 2:18, Eph. 4:4-5, Matt. 3:11).
Paul states that he was sent NOT to baptize but to preach Jesus crucified for our sins (1 Cor. 15:1-4, 1 Cor. 1:17, Eph. 1:13).
Whether you are baptized in a baptistry, lake, or river makes no difference. The nonsense of using warm if there is no cold water sounds like a laundry instruction for colored socks.
This passage would certainly give the Catholic a fit as an INFANT should NEVER FAST. How do you tell an Infant "to fast?"
No instruction to fast before water baptism is found in the SCRIPTURE.
CHAPTER 8
" And let not your fasts be with those of the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but you fast
Wednesdays and Fridays"
What would be the difference? Is Friday a "special" fast day? Ask a Catholic.
COLOSSIANS 2:16-17
*Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:* 17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
ROMANS 14:1-6
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, *but not to doubtful disputations.*
2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
*3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.*
*4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?* to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
*5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.*
6He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.
He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; *and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.*
CHAPTER 9
"Concerning the Eucharist (communion) give thanks like this"
Catholics have a "Eucharist." CHRISTIANS have a REMEMBRANCE.
Is this an early element of the heresy of Transubstantiation?
CHAPTER 11
"Whoever, therefore, who comes and teaches you all these things mentioned, receive him.
But if the one teaching changes what has been taught to another teaching in order to destroy these things, do not listen to him."
Is this referring to the SCRIPTURES or the Didache? Sounds like the writer(s) are claiming inspiration for their work.
Now [concerning the apostles and prophets,] act according to the requirements of the Gospel.
Every apostle coming to you, welcome as you would the Lord. And he should not remain more than one day, and if he has a need also another. [But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet]
HUH? Paul preached in the same Synagogue for THREE MONTHS. He then disputed DAILY in the school of a man names Tyrannus for TWO YEARS.
ACTS 19:8-10
And he went into the *synagogue,* and spake boldly for the space of *three months,* disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.
9But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, *disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.*
10And this continued by the space of *two years;* so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.
Can you say SUPERSTITIOUS?
FROM
Robert Cawdrey's A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words (1604):
superstitious, feareful in matters of religion without cause, one giuen to false and vaine religion
"If he asks for money he is a false prophet. Also, you should not test or judge and prophet speaking in the Spirit, for every sin will be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven"
I've heard Pentecostals and Charismatics claim the same things (with the exception of money and Prosperity preachers).
The Unpardonable sin was only possible in Jesus' day, (and will be in the future Millennial Kingdom) and it was committed by Pharisees who contributed Jesus' miracles to the Devil, not to the Holy Spirit:
MATTHEW 12:31-32
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: *but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.*
32And *whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him:* but *whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.*
Jesus must be PRESENT for this sin to be made that is unforgivable.
Here you have the rudimentary beginnings of "church" infallibility. Next thing is a man with a big paper "fish" hat who yapps while sitting "in a chair" will be INFALLIBILE.
"And any prophet ordering a meal in the Spirit should not eat of it; otherwise he is a false prophet."
How does one eat then? More nonsense.
"But whoever should say in the Spirit, 'Give me money or something else,'
do not listen to them. But if, concerning others in need, he says, give, let no one judge him."
I am glad the author was succinct and clear in the phrase "something else," in addition to MONEY.
CHAPTER 12
"If the one coming is just traveling through, help him as much as you can.
He should not remain with you more than three days if that is necessary"
Already covered. For a short epistle, why the redundancy?
CHAPTER 14
"And when coming together on the Lord's own day, break bread and give thanks after confessing your transgressions. In that manner, *your sacrifice will be pure.* And do not let anyone coming with a quarrel against a brother join you until they get reconciled, *in order that your sacrifice is not impure.* For this has been spoken of by the Lord, "in every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King," says the Lord, "and My name is wonderful among the nations.
I remember as an EX-CATHOLIC the banner painted on the wall behind the priest and altar:
PRAY BRETHREN, THAT MY SACRIFICE AND YOURS MAY BE ACCEPTABLE TO GOD, THE FATHER ALMIGHTY
We are saved BY GOD'S SACRIFICE, not ours.
We REMEMBER the sacrifice; we do not try to OFFER IT AGAIN (Hebrews 9:26, Heb. 10:12), because Jesus Christ did it Himself ONCE.
Sounds like Proto-Catholicism again.
CHAPTER 16
"Assemble yourselves together frequently to seek the things that benefit your souls, *for all the time of your faith will not profit you unless you are perfect at the last"*
Sounds like the author(s) of the Didache were preaching works and enduring to the end for salvation. Paul had a problem with such people in the Book of Galatians, namely those of the circumcision.
There is a curious lack of scripture quotation in this work.
There is no mention of James, John, Peter, Paul or any other Apostle or Old Testament verses.
Sounds more like the personal imaginings of a self-appointed "prophet" or "apostle."
So how do we have writing from early church fathers but not from early sources?
Huh?
scroll down to "churches", years that rites where established are listed there.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_particular_churches_and_liturgical_rites
Here's a list of documented Popes in chronological order
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_particular_churches_and_liturgical_rites
First known mention of the word Catholic come from a letter from St. Ignatius to the Smyrneans in year 110, 77 years after the resurrection. Read chapter 7 for what heretics deny about the Eucharist. Chapter 8, first mention of "catholic church". Chapter 9 : honoring the Bishop. Hierarchy affirmed.
The early Church was in fact Catholic.
The years 1517 to 1536 ushered in Luther's and Calvin's personal interpretations of the text. 100 years later, Jacobius Arminius ushered his 2 cents. If you are a protestant, your theology and doctrine come from one of these 3 men. Prove to me Jesus' teaching was taught incorrectly for 1,517 years
Yikes this video attracts some real hot takes
BCE? You lose all credibility with me when you do that. You should watch the video by Neil deGrasse Tyson about why it's okay for people to use BC and ad..
BC is ok but AD makes no sense as it means After Death of Christ and Jesus Christ is definitely not Dead
@@julianemperor2554 No, as the date is from His birth, not death. It is Anno Domini, Latin for Year of the Lord.
Leon Trotsky - 1879
Spartans regularly got rid of imperfect children
Why are you using “ce” and “bce” instead of bc and ad? You are speaking to a Christian audience.
In this particular video I am speaking to a largely Christian audience, but my channel as a whole is not. My videos are not partisan. In college I was required to use BCE and CE and it became a habit. Nothing more, nothing less.
@@cmyates CE is technically more accurate. Jesus was born a few years ‘before Christ’, amazingly.
Good video, but I would lose the Hendrix shirt.
I appreciate the comment! But Hendrix must stay!
@@ReligiosityPlus Karma will visit that POS very soon... 😉
Wow. Your butchering of "Nicephorus" (bringer of victory) as "Nekrophoros" (bringer of death) indicates you are a Church history dilettante. Ditto on one of the most common names of the early Church--it's you-SEE-bee-us, not you-sue-bee-us. If you want to comment on a topic as complex as this, you need to be more enmeshed in Patristics; the topic is difficult enough not to have provision for amateurs.
If only pronunciation was the litmus test for knowledge, then you might have a point…I assure you, I am no dilettante and my understanding of Patristics is far beyond amateur. I do, after all, have my degree in this.
You make a distinction between “Jewish” and “Christian”, which for the first 100 years is not as hard and fast as you imply. Jesus was a Jew whose followers are part of Hellenistic Judaism. The destruction of the temple was probably the event that to the development of Rabbinical Judaism, which became orthodoxy foe the Jewish people. But the “Jewishness” of what came the Christian Church ought not to be denied even as the majority became non-Jewish. .
Re prohibitions, it doesn't necessarily mean such things (like abortion) were practiced by the Christian community. It's much more likely that it's a reference to a practice in the culture as a whole.
Read the Bible.. if you haven't mastered that then don't go looking for the opinions of men on it, even if they are early
Notice it said to tell the person that is being baptized to fast. So how can you tell a baby to fast or an infant !
But there is only one baptism that saves. That's the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
What we do is just symbolizes what the holy Spirit has done for us.
Which should only be done on a person that can confess their faith.
Your opinion is duly noted as a novel teaching. We, on the other hand, will listen to those who still had the voices of the Apostles ringing in their ears.
Try actually using common sense. They were not saying that infants had to fast.
In the early Church, infants were baptized. The Bible speaks of this when it uses language like, "he and his whole household were baptized." During the era of persecution, this became even more expedient: although in most quarters of the empire, those sent to the slaughter were narrowed down after being asked to sacrifice to the gods (and babies can't do that), there are instances of entire households being martyred. There was a period in the Church not too long after the persecution was lifted when it became fashionable to wait until one reached the age of Christ when He was baptized. St. John Chrysostom was among those, for example. But this practice died out for another good reason: high mortality rates among infants. So, the Church returned to the ancient practice of infant baptism.
I see how you inferred your point from the text. It seems to make sense when we take the book out of context. But keep in mind two things: 1.) the Apostolic Age was a period of rapid growth in the Church, so the instructions are aimed at adult converts for that reason; 2.) the book was compiled for a spiritual father to guide a catechumen (i.e., the book was wielded by someone who was already familiar with the fine points and practices of the Church). A priest or bishop using the text wouldn't need to be reminded that a baby cannot fast from food. I hope that helps.
Baptized by water and the Holy Spirit.
@@anthonyhulse1248 Yes.
The Catholic Church surprisingly enough didn't always have "communion" or the "sacrament" w/e you want to call it. Not sure I needed quote marks for that... John Wycliffe said while he was alive that they had only been doing it for 200 years and he lived in the late 1400's.
Sorry. Mr. Wycliffe was wrong. If you watch this video, you will see that the Catholic Church - because there was no other then - had communion, and, per the Didache, it was restricted to the baptized.